Points suggestions (alter win/loss points transfer method)

[Dako]

Hello there.

Got 2 thoughts on the current CC point system. To be honest, I don't see a problem with current system, but here is 2 suggestions for you to discuss. Please open a ranking table in another window so it will be easier for you to understand what I mean here.

Number 1. Do not award points (but take it away on loss) for the win when the difference between players rank is more than a certain number.
a. for singles it can be 5 levels (so brig will get points only from Sergeant 1st Class and higher)
b. for team games it can be a size of team * 5 (so for dubs the difference between sum of ranks cannot be more than 10).

This will prevent farming because you will get 0 points for the win and will loose them on a loss. (Oh, well, we can change it as well to make it fair).

Number 2.
Change the award system based on new criteria - level of the challenge (similar to MMORPG games like WoW).
Level 1 - difference in rank is 1-3.
Level 2 - difference is 4-5
Level 3 - 6
Level 4 - 7
Level 5 - 8
Level 6 - 9+

And when the game finishes you transfer points according to the level of the challenge.
Level 1 = 20 points
Level 2 = 16 points
Level 3 = 12 points
Level 4 = 8 points
Level 5 = 4 points
Level 6 = 0 points

That means a cook will not get a ton for winning a general because it doesn't make sense. Everyone can win due to luck. But if you are lucky against general - doesn't mean you need to be awarded with points (thou advancing you in rank you haven't deserved). And for general - it makes no sense to win over cooks again and again - that will not grant you new skills or anything.

And to advance in ranks you need to play opponents of your level all the time (or be very smart and selective in farming).

Of course, all the numbers can be changed to suit CC needs - this numbers are just an example. Also, it will be easier to "teach" new members - no one will get points for the win and you can be safe about keeping your score.

Both concepts will nearly eliminate low-ranked players farming or make it extremely hard to control.

So what do you think about that? Please vote and comment.
Thanks.

[edwinissweet]

number two might help the point inflation. i think =p

[TheForgivenOne]

I like Number 1

[army of nobunaga]

Pretty articulate post. Thanx.

I went with one... Although number two has a ton of promise.

[Dako]

I'd like to hear some critics or thoughts. Is it wise to change current system at all? Stating which one you liked is great, but more input from you - better suggestion at the end.

[army of nobunaga]

I'd like to hear some critics or thoughts. Is it wise to change current system at all? Stating which one you liked is great, but more input from you - better suggestion at the end.

Well I think I have a large inflammatory thread on why I think the point system needs to change. We create "paper" champs on CC. People that are ranked FAR ahead of us but if you took away their farming noobs on freestyle games they are actually pretty basic players.

I believe that the point system just needs tweeks slightly not a complete overhaul. All great things in life come about as a series of step improving process. How many improvements/tweeks to the point system have we had here?

[army of nobunaga]

You know who declares the fairest champion every year? I dont watch it, but Nascar.
They take points with each track and tally them on finish.

Why not something like this.




Take divisional rankings.. Award points for conqueror for the top 100 finishers in each division.

Then tally the points of each player for overall standings.

I think this would create more competition and more of our "champs" playing on different maps and settings.

[army of nobunaga]

look at post #3 here
viewtopic.php?f=444&t=119486

why does everyone think this is ok? This guy is a joke and there are several like him.

[ljex]

Although there are a few players who abuse the point system most of us dont and for that it works. Also the only flaw i see in the current point system is that there are so many settings your rank dosnt always indicate what you will do on a particular setting. However i feel trying to fix that would be unnecessary and lead to way more bad then good so i think it should stay the way it is.

[army of nobunaga]

Dako, you see my idea?

[Dako]

Yes, I see, but I don't see the point of rank distribution.

[army of nobunaga]

Well it would just create more balanced champions. You could keep your overall title like General or Major.. ... but the top 100 ranked players and conqueror could be a colonel that plays well on all maps.

[Woodruff]

Personally, I am a huge fan of the way CC currently runs the points schedule. However, I do believe that your Option 1 here should be ADDED TO the way that CC currently runs things. In fact, I can think of absolutely no reason NOT to add Option 1 to the way things are now.

[trapyoung]

Problem with Option 1 is that w/o rank filters then why would a high rank ever create a public game if low ranks will join it and it is pure risk, no reward. You would lead to more private games and there would be no diversification in games. And if you can actually learn strategy from gameplay then you would siphon off part of the population and the poor would learn from the poor while the rich diddled along with the rich. It might stop the uncreative farmer but it would likely stop the well intentioned creator of public games - what would be the effect on team games where a high rank player uses a very low rank player to farm? There would be virtually no effect if it's team combined rank, the only resolution would be to do it based on highest rank of individual member of team but then no one would play with high ranks if they were lowered or those dumb enough to do so would find themselves cooking in the kitchen very quickly.

[Woodruff]

Problem with Option 1 is that w/o rank filters then why would a high rank ever create a public game if low ranks will join it and it is pure risk, no reward.

No, that's just it...there is no risk OR reward for anyone, at least if I read the option correctly. No points at risk if the difference is too great.

EDIT: I just re-read the option and you may be right. In which case, I would agree that it would really only work IF there was no risk or reward for EITHER player.

[edwinissweet]

hmm, what happens in team games? like a high rank partnered with a low rank

[Woodruff]

hmm, what happens in team games? like a high rank partnered with a low rank

Good question...not being a team-game player myself, I tend not to think about those types of games. It seems to me that the same sort of progression could be used for the "combination of the team" (total points or whatever). Not sure how much that might lead to multis though...

[Queen_Herpes]

I like option 2. Makes high ranks work for their points, makes low ranks work as well, without vaulting them up the ladder too quickly.

[drunkmonkey]

I like option 2, because it allows players to participate in tournaments and keep their rank.

[Woodruff]

I like option 2, because it allows players to participate in tournaments and keep their rank.

The current system easily does this. I don't think there should be a change, honestly.

[drunkmonkey]

I like option 2, because it allows players to participate in tournaments and keep their rank.

The current system easily does this. I don't think there should be a change, honestly.

Well, if you're a corporal, I guess it does. If you're a major getting matched up in 1v1 games against cadets, you have to win 5 out of 6 games just to stay even. And anyone who plays 1v1 knows a game can be decided by a drop.

It's just an opinion; I'm fine either way. I can get my rank back eventually; it's just frustrating to win 4 out of 5 games and watch your score drop.

[Woodruff]

I like option 2, because it allows players to participate in tournaments and keep their rank.

The current system easily does this. I don't think there should be a change, honestly.

Well, if you're a corporal, I guess it does. If you're a major getting matched up in 1v1 games against cadets, you have to win 5 out of 6 games just to stay even. And anyone who plays 1v1 knows a game can be decided by a drop.
It's just an opinion; I'm fine either way. I can get my rank back eventually; it's just frustrating to win 4 out of 5 games and watch your score drop.

I know several exceptionally frequent tournament players who have considerably high ranks.

[rdsrds2120]

I like this ranking system, but I also like the CC system

LIGHT-BULB!

What if we adopt the ranking system, but the multiplier for the winner / loser point ratio that's calculated after a game changes?

For example, if someone is within one rank away of their opponent, the multiplier remains 20, 3-4 ranks away and we can reduce the multiplier to 15, or what have you.
I think that if a change would come about in the point system, that one would be easier to implement and would still be fair. It would be our current point system with a little...boost

[fumandomuerte]

I like the 2nd option except for the zero note. I'd use 1 as the minimum instead

[danes]

I think a rating system sort of like the Chess ELO system would work best.

I also think that there should be a smaller cap and average rating change from winning or losing. As it is now, losing to an equally ranked player costs you 20 and to a lower ranked player can cost up to 100 or so. I think 10/20 cap would be better.